The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has reportedly acted against construction work at actor Ajay Devgn’s bungalow in Juhu after finding that the owners had not submitted documents proving that the work was authorised. However, the supplied report is unclear on whether portions of the property were actually demolished, making confirmation of the enforcement action necessary.
According to Navbharat Times – Mumbai, the property is located in Kapole Cooperative Housing Society in the JVPD area and is owned by Ajay Devgn and his mother, Veena Devgan. The bungalow occupies 7,802 square feet, the report said.
The BMC’s K/West ward office issued an order on 6 October after examining a response submitted on 15 September. The municipal authority reportedly said that the response did not include copies of permissions issued by a competent authority. On that basis, the civic body treated the construction as unauthorised, according to the report.
The matter relates to a stop-work notice issued on 10 September under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The notice concerned alleged unauthorised construction and alterations at Kapol CHS Limited, located on N S Road No. 11, with the property identified as Plot No. 10 and CTS No. 841. The report said Siporex blocks were being used in the work.
The alleged work included internal alterations, partition walls, changes to windows and other structural modifications. The notice directed the owner or occupant to stop work immediately and produce the required permissions within 24 hours. It also warned that unauthorised structures and construction material could be removed at the owner’s risk and expense if the directions were not followed.
The notice further asked the police to monitor the site and remove workers if necessary. The BMC later rejected the response attributed to the property owner, stating that no supporting document had been provided to establish that the ongoing work had received approval from the competent authority.
The report’s account of the enforcement action requires clarification. Its headline and summary state that parts of the bungalow were demolished after the stop-work notice, and its opening says that BMC officials arrived with staff and carried out demolition. Yet the report also states that the 6 October order did not make clear whether the civic body had taken steps to remove the construction. No demolition record, municipal release, official inspection note or statement from the property owners is included in the supplied material.
The case highlights the administrative importance of permissions for alterations even within privately owned homes. Under Mumbai’s municipal framework, internal changes, structural modifications and additions may require approval depending on their nature and impact. The immediate next step is confirmation from the BMC and the property owners on the action taken at the site, the specific work held to be unauthorised and whether any appeal or further compliance process is underway.
